New York Times (Opinion)
By Lawrence Downes
September 24, 2015
Of
all the falsehoods fouling the public discourse these days, one of the
worst is that immigrants are a threat and a burden to the United States.
It’s
odd that many Americans seem to feel so badly about their own
ancestors. But there’s no denying the nativist mood that has lifted
Donald Trump to the top of the Republican
presidential race. He slanders Mexican immigrants as drug dealers and
rapists, calls America “a dumping ground” for foreigners and promises to
make the country “great again” by getting rid of 11 million of them.
Mr.
Trump’s rivals, far from rejecting his hatred, have joined the chorus.
Ben Carson, echoing the anti-Catholic bigotry once directed at John F.
Kennedy, says Muslims
should not be president, because they would owe their allegiance to the
Koran, not the Constitution. Jeb Bush, who married a Mexican woman and
speaks fluent Spanish, denounced “multiculturalism.” Marco Rubio, son of
Cuban immigrants, rules out a path to green cards and citizenship for unauthorized immigrants during his
hypothetical presidency.
“Immigration without assimilation is invasion,” says Bobby Jindal, repeatedly.
On and on, the fever rages. But this week, a cool blast of reason blew in from outside the fray.
A
team of scholars presented exhaustive evidence that anti-immigrant
bigotry is baseless and that the truism about America as a melting pot
is – no kidding – still true.
A
443-page study published on Monday by the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is the most sweeping survey of
immigrant integration in nearly 20
years. You can read it here, or take the highlights from Julia
Preston’s article in The Times.
The
basic conclusion is that the machinery of American assimilation is
working pretty well after nearly two and a half centuries.
The
scholars looked “across all measurable outcomes,” like education, wages
and mastery of English, and found that recent immigrants were
assimilating at least as quickly
as their 20th-century European predecessors. They want to learn
English, and their children and grandchildren invariably do. They commit
fewer crimes than the native-born, and are generally healthier.
“Immigrants’
education levels, the diversity of their jobs, their wages and their
mastery of English improved as they lived for more time in the United
States, and the
gains were even greater for their American-born children,” Ms. Preston
wrote.
While
Americans have always been afraid that new immigrants increase crime,
“it has never been true,” said Mary C. Waters, a Harvard sociologist who
led the panel.
I
have long wondered why Republican politicians who revel in the
trappings of patriotism — flags and eagles and chants of “U.S.A.” — fail
to see how unpatriotic their
words can be. What is more un-American than hopelessness about our
future, and a generalized hatred of the people who made — and make —
this country great? Why do Republicans think there’s a place in American
ideology and iconography for pickup trucks, cowboy
hats and guns — but not the Statue of Liberty and what she explicitly
represents?
Actually, I shouldn’t say all Republicans.
Check this out, from Ronald Reagan, a powerful rebuttal to the whole G.O.P. field.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment